The advisors have backgrounds in social work, public health, advising public officials, etc. Not really any background in AI or technology that I saw. So it's an interesting group that, I suppose, would help you know if you're making something that's actually beneficial to the public. Not sure if they'd be able to see past any obfuscation that OpenAI might be incentivized to put up. It is not exactly what I was expecting to see, but at least they seem like good people?

Advisors? What authority will these people have? It looks like the board has put 90 days of insulation between themselves and the outside world.

The amount of blatant pandering OpenAI is doing to California politicians should make everyone suspicious. They are structuring this nonprofit transition as a bribe to the California politician-nonprofit complex in exchange for a much more valuable regulatory approval. Their announcement from a few days ago:

> built by the leading AI company, put in the hands of nonprofits throughout California, across America and beyond… This commission will also incorporate feedback from leaders and communities in health, science, education, and public services—particularly within OpenAI’s home state of California.

These advisors have no connection to AI whatsoever—what they have in common is deep political connections in the state of California. Dolores Huerta is a remarkable woman, but she is a 95 year-old union organizer. The rest of the list is similar.

Is there anyone in America who believes OpenAI is making this transition to better achieve its nonprofit’s mission? I would like to meet them.